China factory growth suggests contraction

I found this story through Americablog, with the source story coming from CNBC.Com:

China factories expanded in June at their slowest pace in 11 months while price pressures eased, a purchasing managers' survey showed on Thursday, the latest evidence the economy is losing steam in response to a spate of tightening steps.

The HSBC flash manufacturing purchasing managers' index (PMI), the earliest available indicator of China's industrial activity, eased to 50.1 in June, which was the lowest since July 2010 and close to indicating a contraction in the sector.

That compares with the final reading of 51.6 in the HSBC PMI for May. A figure above 50 points to expansion on the month.

"Demand is cooling thanks to the effect of tightening measures and the slackness in external markets," said Qu Hongbin, the chief China economist at HSBC.

I'd certainly say that demand is cooling--especially with the U.S. consumer, where China sends a ton of their exports. The American consumers are not buying, as they do not have any money to spend. The unemployment rate is at 9 percent here--possibly double if you add in the underemployed or those who have dropped out of the labor market. Housing is still in the pits. Food and energy prices have stayed relatively high. We've been the big market for China's products for years. Now that we have no money to buy China's products, where is China going to sell their stuff? So in some ways, it does not surprise me that China's factory index has dropped. I'll certainly be curious to see what the next quarter's index is--will it go below 50, to measure a real contraction?

Sarah Palin just quit her bus tour

I guess midnight has arrived, Paul Revere had warned the British that the British were going to take away all our guns, and Sarah Palin's bus tour has turned into a pumpkin. From Real Clear Politics:

Less than a month after she appeared poised to shake up the Republican presidential campaign, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has once again receded from the 2012 limelight.

When Palin launched her "One Nation" bus tour on Memorial Day amid a swirl of media attention and excitement from her fervent fan base, many political observers who had once dismissed her were reminded of the jolt that her candidacy could provide to what has thus far been a relatively sleepy GOP nominating fight.

Less than a month after she appeared poised to shake up the Republican presidential campaign, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has once again receded from the 2012 limelight.

When Palin launched her "One Nation" bus tour on Memorial Day amid a swirl of media attention and excitement from her fervent fan base, many political observers who had once dismissed her were reminded of the jolt that her candidacy could provide to what has thus far been a relatively sleepy GOP nominating fight.

The question I would have to ask is why did Sarah Palin even embark on this "One Nation" bus tour before quitting after a month? I'm guessing that Sarah Palin wanted the media attention. She announces a big bus tour, and the media salivates like Pavlov's dogs--will Sarah Palin run in 2012? Palin makes a gaffe on Paul Revere's ride, and the media speculates as to whether the British were warned that they were going to take our guns. Or was it Sarah Palin's guns? The media hype on Palin starts to die down. Palin's bus tour becomes a snooze, and the next thing you know, Sarah Palin's back in Alaska, planning her next publicity stunt.

If only she'll just stay in Alaska.

Harrisburg praying God can pull them out of financial ruin

I found this story through Americablog, and even I can't believe it. The source story is from CNBC.com:

If all the brightest minds in Harrisburg’s government can’t solve the city’s financial problems, maybe God can.

That seems to be the thinking in Pennsylvania’s capital city, where Mayor Linda Thompson and a host of other religious leaders are about to embark on a three-day fast and prayer campaign to cure the city’s daunting money woes.

Maybe Greece should have thought of this.

“Things that are above and beyond my control, I need God,” Thompson told WHTM TV, the region’s ABC news affiliate. “I depend on Him for guidance. Spiritual guidance. That’s why it’s really no struggle for me to join this fast and prayer.”

But judging by its financial picture, the city of 49,000 in the central part of the Keystone State may not even have a prayer.

According to a recent analysis from the state’s Department of Community and Economic Development, Harrisburg is likely to end the year with a nearly $3.5 million deficit in its $58 million budget, and things are only expected to get worse.

All I can think of is this:



Instead of prayer, why doesn't the mayor bring some economists or financial experts in to propose tough solutions to fix Harrisburg's financial situation--even if that may include a combination of budget cuts and tax increases?

Newt Gingrich's campaign finance team quits

About two weeks ago, top campaign aides for Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich resigned en mass, on "differences over the direction of the campaign." Gingrich promised he would continue "running the substantive, solutions-oriented campaign I set out to run earlier this spring," in spite of the resignations.

Well, it appears that Gingrich's finance team has also quit: From The Associated Press:

The top fundraisers for Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign have abandoned his struggling bid amid anemic fundraising and heavy spending.

Campaign spokesman R.C. Hammond is confirming to The Associated Press that fundraising director Jody Thomas and fundraising consultant Mary Heitman have left the team.

The former House speaker's campaign has been on life support since earlier this month when 16 top aides and advisers resigned en masse over disagreements with the Republican candidate.

People familiar with Gingrich's campaign spending say his fundraising has been weak since he launched his bid and that he has racked up large travel bills. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk openly about campaign inner workings.

Gingrich has insisted that he will stay in the race.

I'm starting to wonder how long Newt Gingrich can stay in the race, now that his top campaign staff has already left him. This makes me wonder where the top staff will go to now? Will they join President Barack Obama's former ambassador to China, Jon Huntsman? Or will they go to Mitten's Romney? Or Michele Bachmann? The Republicans have a huge field of candidates, some are just about perfect to entice the right-wing crazies of the party, while others are still flirting with bus tours to preach that Paul Revere was warning the British that the British will take away all our guns. I'm not looking at a GOP presidential campaign to oust Obama--I'm watching a slow-motion clown show of a three-ring circus!

And as for Newt? I don't think he ever had his heart in the campaign for the White House. He still has some serious baggage to contend with, with his polarizing speaker record in the late 90s, and his attempt to impeach Bill Clinton from the White House. Instead, I see Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign as a way to keep Newt Gingrich in the media spotlight, possibly picking up whatever cash he can get to continue playing the spotlight (And possibly enrich himself as well). The question we have to ask now is when will this clown be finally kicked out of the ring?

Guy robs bank of $1 to get health care coverage

There is something seriously wrong in this country, where a guy has to rob a bank in order to get health care coverage. From ABC News:

A 59-year-old man has been jailed in Gastonia, N.C., on charges of larceny after allegedly robbing an RBC Bank for $1 so he could get health care in prison. Richard James Verone handed a female teller a note demanding the money and claiming that he had a gun, according to the police report.

He then sat down and waited for police to arrive. "I say, 'I'll be sitting right over here, on the chair, waiting for the police,'" Verone told reporters, recalling the June 9 robbery in an interview from Gaston County Jail.

And wait for the police, he did.

"He's sitting on the sofa as you walk in the front door," the bank teller said in a 911 call.

Police arrested Verone where he sat. He was unarmed.

Verone said he asked for $1 to show that his motives were medical, not monetary, according to news reports. With a growth in his chest, two ruptured disks and no job, Verone hoped a three-year stint in prison would afford him the health care he needed.

"I'm sort of a logical person and that was my logic, what I came up with," Verone told reporters. "If it is called manipulation, then out of necessity because I need medical care, then I guess I am manipulating the courts to get medical care."

But the charge of larceny, not armed robbery, is unlikely to keep Verone behind bars for more than 12 months. He is being held in Gaston County Jail on a $2,000 bond, according to a spokesman for the jail, and is scheduled to appear in court June 28.

Would you spend $100,000 on a razor?

Yes, this is a $100,000 razor. From Yahoo News.

This is just insane. Then again, I guess the ubber-rich have got to buy something to entertain themselves. From Yahoo.com:

$100,000 can buy many things: a brand new sports car, a boat, or a ridiculously luxurious vacation, just to name a few. But if you already have a new Audi in your driveway, a yacht at the marina, and just got back from a trip around the world, perhaps you'd rather drop your cold hard cash on a limited edition iridium razor. The pricey item is crafted by Zafirro, a company which seems to have just one product in its lineup, and just 99 of the "Zafirro Iridium" razors will be made.

The handle of the razor is made entirely of iridium, an extremely scarce and expensive metal that is so dense it could survive a drop into molten lava. Most iridium that appears on Earth is the result of crashed meteorites.http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif The blades of thehttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif beast are made from artifhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gificially grown sapphire, making them hypoallergenic, not to mention many orders of magnitude sharper than your average Bic. The company boasts a 10-year blade life, and backs it up with free sharpening for a decade if the razor ever dulls.

The Zafirro Iridium, while promising "generations" of enjoyable use, is clearly made for the millionaire who already has everything. The company says the upgrade from a traditional razor to the $100,000 model is like changing from a CB radio to an iPhone, but unless your morning shave takes place at the mouth of a volcano, we're not sure it's worth it.

Zafirro via Laughing Squid

Florida Governor Rick Scott Writes Letters So You Don't Have To

I found this through the Washington Monthly, and I'm just amazed. The original source story is through the Orlando Sentinel:

For a guy who claims not read newspapers — or care what the polls say or the public thinks — Rick Scott sure is putting a lot of effort into trying to score some good publicity.

In fact, if regular old rank-and-file Floridians won’t write nice things about him in letters to the editor, Scott has decided to write the words for them.

One of the newest features on www.rickscottforflorida.com is a page where Scott supporters can send pre-written letters of praise for Scott … written by Scott’s campaign team. Just pick the newspaper you want to contact. (Yes, the Sentinel is one of the seven.) And then you can add your name to a letter that says: “While politicians usually disappoint us and rarely keep their promises,http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif Rick is refreshing because he’s keeping his word. His policies are helping to attract businesses http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifto our state and get people back to work.”

It’d be even more refreshing to read letters sent by people who actually wrote them themselves. But it appears that Scott has reached the point where he doesn’t care about such nuances.

You can read the full pre-written letter – and attach your own signature to it – here: http://www.rickscottforflorida.com/2011/06/14/email-a-newspaper-editor/

I'm having trouble trying to wrap my head around this. Apparently Rick Scott is one of the least popular governors in the U.S., drawing a 57 percent disapproval rating from Florida voters, according to a Quinnipiac University poll, on May 26, 2011. Rick Scott has been a disaster for Florida. He's cut unemployment benefits, teacher's pay, and low income health services to fund corporate tax cuts. Scott has rejected Florida's receiving federal funds to build a high-speed rail line between Tampa and Orlando. Scott has signed legislation, creating a pilot program that will place "hundreds of thousands of low-income and elderly Floridians into managed-care plans" as a Medicaid overhaul. This pilot program allows a company called Solantic, a chain of urgent-care clinics, to receive funds from this pilot program. Solantic was founded by none other than Florida's governor Rick Scott. There are even more reports of fraud that took place at a Columbia/HCA, when Scott was head of the company. It is no wonder that Scott has a disapproval rating of 57 percent.

So Rick Scott wants to improve his publicity. He could try to create legislation to benefit the people of Florida, rather than himself, the corporate, or ubber-rich monied interests. Forget that--let's create web-based, formed email letters that Florida's citizens can sent to their local newspapers! It is beyond ridiculous! What is even more crazy is that it is Rick Scott's staff that wrote the emails--you just have to sign your name and email address, allowing the Rick Scott for Florida campaign to bombard your email address for campaign donations. It is almost like a publicity stunt that the Scott campaign has created for the 30-percent conservative crazies to accept their marching orders from Der Leader.

If you write it, the crazies will come.

Tea Party Creates a Summer Camp

I found this story through the Washington Monthly, and I just can't believe it. The original source story is through TampaBay.com:

TAMPA — Here's another option now that the kids are out of school: a weeklong seminar about our nation's founding principles, courtesy of the Tampa 912 Project.

The organization, which falls under the tea party umbrella, hopes to introduce kids ages 8 to 12 to principles that include "America is good," "I believe in God," and "I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable."

Organized by conservative writer Jeff Lukens and staffed by volunteers from the 912 Project, Tampa Liberty School will meet every morning July 11-15 in borrowed space at the Paideia Christian school in Temple Terrace.

"We want to impart to our children what our nation is about, and what they may or may not be told," Lukens said.

A Tea Party summer camp? Is this for real? To me, this camp feels like a way for Lukens to shove his ideology down young children's' throats, rather than allow the children to find their own way, and develop their own political philosophy. I mean, Government cannot force me to be charitable? I can assure you that when I was around 8 to 12, I was more interested in playing "Cops and Robbers," or "Army men," rather than spouting how government is forcing me to be more charitable.

But wait, there is more:

Tampa Liberty is modeled after vacation Bible schools, which use fun, hands-on activities to deliver Christian messages.

One example at Liberty: Children will win hard, wrapped candies to use as currency for a store, symbolizing the gold standard. On the second day, the "banker" will issue paper money instead. Over time, students will realize their paper money buys less and less, while the candies retain their value.

"Some of the kids will fall for it," Lukens said. "Others kids will wise up."

Another example: Starting in an austere room where they are made to sit quietly, symbolizing Europe, the children will pass through an obstacle course to arrive at a brightly decorated party room (the New World).

Red-white-and-blue confetti will be thrown. But afterward the kidshttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif will have to clean up the confetti, learning that with freedom comes responsibility.

Still another example: Children will blow bubbles from a single container of soapy solution, and then pop each other's bubbles with squirt guns in an arrangement that mimics socialism. They are to count how many bubbles they pop. Then they will work with individual bottles of solution and pop their own bubbles.

"What they will find out is that you can do a lot more with individual freedom," Lukens said.

The more I read this, the more I'm starting to think about another "political" summer camp that was started in the 1930s:



Are the conservatives starting to get that crazy?

Obama Impersonator Cracks Racist Jokes at Republican Event

This is from the New York Times:

NEW ORLEANS — A comedian impersonating President Obama who was hired to perform here on Saturday at the Republican Leadership Conference delivered racially tinged remarks about Mr. Obama’s heritage and offered a mocking assessment of the Republican presidential candidates.

The impersonator, Reggie Brown of Chicago, opened his act by joking about Mr. Obama’s family history, referring to his white mother from Kansas and his black father from Kenya. He said that he was born in Hawaii, adding, “or as the Tea Partiers like to call it, Kenya.”

He said that Michelle Obama, the first lady, enjoys celebrating all of February, Black History Month. He said the president celebrates only half the month.

“My mother loved a black man and, no, she was not a Kardashian,” Mr. Brown said later, referring to the family that stars in reality shows. Khloe Kardashian, who is white, is married to Lamar Odom, who is black and plays for the Los Angeles Lakers.

The audience, which was nearly entirely white, watched with befuddlement as the impersonator told them to look into the future to see what the Obamas will look like when they are retired. An image of a feuding husband and wife, from the TV show “Sanford and Son,” was flashed on screens in the ballroom.

Republican strategist Doug Heye wrote a message on Twitter, "Wonder why many minorities have problems with the G.O.P? Our own fault." What were the Republicans thinking of, when they hired this guy for entertainment at a political event? What is even more ironic is that Brown then made "derogatory jokes about Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty and Newt Gingrich before his hosts cut him off with loud music and escorted him from the stage before his act was over." So while Brown was cracking jokes on both Obama and the starting lineup for the Republican presidential candidates, the Louisiana Republican Party, who hired Brown, apparently did not like the jokes against their party's candidates and cut him off.

Here is some of the YouTube video of Reggie Brown's performance:



Watching it, the "Republican" audience laughs when Brown makes fun of Obama, but then the crowd gets real silent as Brown turns towards their own politicians--you'll even hear a collective groan when Brown talks about Mitt Romney's multiple first, second and third ladies. Of course, the audience really laughed at Brown's Sanford and Son joke. There certainly was not much befuddlement on the audiences' part, as they were laughing at Brown's jokes against the president. The "befuddlement" came when Brown started making fun of the GOP politicians. It is almost like the Republicans can't laugh at themselves.

Student's Don't Know Much About History

This is really depressing. From MSNBC News:

U.S. students don't know much about American history, according to results of a national test released Tuesday.

Just 13 percent of high school seniors who took the 2010 National Assessment of Educational Progress — called the Nation's Report Card — showed solid academic performance in American history. The two other grade levels tested didn't perform much better, which just 22 percent of fourth-grade students and 18 percent of eighth-graders scoring proficient or better.

The test quizzed students on such topics as colonization, the American Revolution, the Civil War and the contemporary United States. For example, one question asks fourth-graders why it was important for the United States to build canals in the 1800s.

"The history scores released today show that student performance is still too low," said Education Secretary Arne Duncan in a prepared statement. "These results tell us that, as a country, we are failing to provide children with a high-quality, well-rounded education."

Education experts say a heavy focus on reading and math under thehttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif federal No Child Left Behind law in the last decade has led to lagging performance in other subjects such as history and science.

"We need to make sure other subject like history, science and the arts are not forgotten in our pursuit of the basic skills," said Diane Ravitch, a research professor at New York University and former U.S. assistant education secretary.

I love history. My interest is mainly recent U.S. history, from the Second World War to today. One of the advantages of learning history is that it teaches you critical thinking skills. Why was it important for the U.S. to build canals in the 1800s? In that test, only 44 percent knew that it was increased trade among states. That was for the fourth graders. You've got to wonder how the high school seniors would have answered questions on the reasons the United States to have entered into the Civil War, or the Second World War. Or even to look at the issues and events that defined the Cold War, the Civil Rights struggle in the 1950s and 60s, or even how Watergate may have shaped the political arena to this day. Unfortunately, our public schools seem to spend more time cramming facts into students' heads, in preparation for standardized tests. I can never remember all the facts, or dates, or who said what in history--I can look that stuff up on the internet. But I can look at the issues, causes, results of historical events and determine their relevancy or why they occurred, or even if history will end up repeating itself.

Apple Announces iCloud Storage Service

I saw this news story this morning on the TV news, and wanted to delve into it. From CNet News:

Apple CEO Steve Jobs today announced an online cloud storage service called iCloud that's designed to make it simple to wirelessly share music, e-mail, photos, calendars, and other data between handheld gadgets and desktop computers.

The new Apple service, which has been the subject of intense speculation for more than a year, attempts to harness the power and flexibility of cloud computing for home users. It uses techniques that have already proved popular with businesses to make it easier to move data stored on Apple's servers back and forth between multiple devices and applications.

Jobs introduced iCloud this morning at the Worldwide Developers Conference in San Francisco as part of a broader announcement that also highlighted the forthcoming version of Mac OS X Lion, available in July for $29.99, and new features for iOS including a newsstand and tabbed browsing on the iPad.

iCloud represents a direct challenge to Google's cloud-based offerings, which already use services like Gmail, Calendar, Picasa, and Google Docs to let users see and edit the same document or photo across multiple devices. In addition, Google recently announced Google Music and, in March, Amazon.com unveiled Amazon Cloud Drive.

I'm starting to wonder if Apple is a little late on their introduction to cloud computing. There is a wide range of cloud computing services for consumer to choose from. A perfect example is internet-based photo sharing, such as Google's Picasa, Photobucket, and Flickr. Businesses can develop their own email and marketing campaigns through Constant Contact,and you can back up your computer hard drive's data files through Carbonite. There are a ton of free email services with Yahoo, Google, Hotmail, AOL, and such. This is just what I can remember off the top of my head--I'm sure there are many other cloud-based services out there for computers, netbooks, touch-pad computers, and smart phones.

However, this next paragraph really struck me:

About 10 years ago, Jobs said, Apple experienced one of its most important insights: The PC would become the digital hub for your digital life and store photos, video, and music, which would in turn be synchronized with mobile devices plugged in to it. Now, he said, his company is at a similar turning point, where iCloud can store data and wirelessly push it to every device you own.

I think Steve Jobs saw the light a little late here. Jobs may have believed that the PC would first be the digital hub for your digital life, with storing photos, music, and video. Apple concentrated into selling its operating system to really organize your digital life around the computer. But the combined rise of smart phones and social networking threw a monkey wrench at Jobs--you can't access your iTunes or digital photos on your smart phone when you're away from your computer. So Jobs is shifting Apple's attention towards this bigger market of cloud computing, where you can purchase your iTunes at the Apple Store, and then store them on Apple's cloud servers to access them from your iPhone and your iPad. I'm sure Apple will also provide a digital photo sharing program (if they do not already have one). Will Apple allow developers to write applications to their mobile operating system, as we see with Google's Android? It will be interesting to see how Apple develops its iCloud system here, considering how successful they have been with their iTunes, iPhone, and iPad technology.

Then again, Google is not going to sit around and wait for Apple to catch up, as they are introducing their own Google Music to compete with Apples iTunes. The cloud computing world has just gotten a lot more competitive for consumers' dollars to go up in the clouds....

Stephen Colbert on Paul Revere's Midnight Ride

I guess Sarah Palin was right--Stephen Colbert just proved it with his re-enactment of Paul Revere's famous Midnight Ride. It is hysterical.

The Colbert Report
Tags: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Sarah Palin on Paul Revere's Midnight Ride

It has been a while since I've posted on this blog, but I found this story about the former half-term Alaskan governor, and former GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, and I'm just amazed. From the Los Angeles Times:

Sarah Palin, if you haven't heard, is taking some of her family around the country, visiting historical U.S. landmarks, and talking to the media along the way.

Thursday her "One Nation" traveling road show stopped in Boston, where the former Alaska governor, her parents, her husband, and little Piper visited Paul Revere's house, the Old North Church, and Bunker Hill. Palin posted photos of that leg of her trip on the SarahPAC blog.

One moment that you won't find posted on the blog is Palin's respohttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifnse to reporters when they asked her who Paul Revere was. Instead of saying, "Come on, everyone knows who Paul Revere, the silversmith and patriot is," she stammered while saying this:

"He who warned, uh, the British that they weren’t gonna be takin’ away our arms, uh, by ringing those bells, and um, makin' sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed."

Needless to say, the lamestream media are having a field day with that gaffe.

Here is the YouTube video:



Can anyone really be that ignorant and...dare I say...stupid? To think that if John McCain had won the White House in 2010, this lady would have been a heartbeat away from the presidency?

And now Sarah Palin is on a traveling bus, playing like she's campaigning for 2012. Unbelievable.

Update: Sarah Palin continues with her ignorance of American History. According to Think Progress:

As ThinkProgress reported, during a June 2 stop in Boston on her “One Nation” bus tour, Sarah Palin managed to spectacularly flub the historical account of Paul Revere’s famed “Midnight Ride.” Describing Revere as warnhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifing “the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms, uh, by ringing those bells and, uhm, making sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells,http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif” Palin’s version inspired confusion and some much-deserved jibes from across the media.

None of this has deterred Palin herself, however. This morning on Fox News Sunday, she doubled down on her creative re-imagining of Paul Revere’s ride, saying “I didn’t mess up.”

Here is the YouTube clip of Palin saying how she "didn't mess up;"



And here is the printed quote:

CHRIS WALLACE: I gotta ask you about that real quickly, though. You realize that you messed up about Paul Revere, don’t you?

PALIN: You know what? I didn’t mess up about Paul Revere. Here’s what Paul Revere did. He warned the Americans that “the British were coming, the British were coming.” And they were going to try to take our arms so got to make sure that, uh, we were protecting ourselves and, uhm, shoring up all of our ammunitions and our firearms so that they couldn’t take them.

But remember that the British had already been there — many soldiers — for seven years in that area. And part of Paul Revere’s ride… And it wasn’t just one ride. He was a courier. He was a messenger. Part of his ride was to warn the British that were already there that, “Hey. You’re not going to succeed. You’re not going to take American arms. You are not gonna beat our own well-armed, uh, persons, uh, individual private militia that we have. He did warn the British.

And in a shout-out, gotcha type of question that was asked of me, I answered candidly. And I know my American history.

I went into Wikipedia's reference for Paul Revere's "Midnight Ride," and this is what I found out:

In the days before April 18, Revere had instructed Robert Newman, the sexton of the Old North Church, to send a signal by lantern to alert colonists in Charlestown as to the movements of the troops when the information became known. In what is well known today by the phrase "one if by land, two if by sea", one lantern in the steeple would signal the army's choice of the land route, while two lanterns would signal the route "by water" across the Charles River.

Riding through present-day Somerville, Medford, and Arlington, Revere warned patriots along his route - many of whom set out on horseback to deliver warnings of their own. By the end of the night there were probably as many as 40 riders throughout Middlesex County carrying the news of the army's advance. Revere did not shout the phrase later attributed to him ("The British are coming!"), largely because the mission depended on secrecy and the countryside was filled with British army patrols; also, most colonial residents at the time considered themselves British as they were all legally British subjects, [MY Ephasis]. Revere's warning, according to eyewitness accounts of the ride and Revere's own descriptions, was "The Regulars are coming out,"[My Emphasis]. Revere arrived in Lexington around midnight, with Dawes arriving about a half hour later. Samuel Adams and John Hancock were spending the night at the Hancock-Clarke House in Lexington, and they spent a great deal of time discussing plans of action upon receiving the news. Revere and Dawes, meanwhile, decided to ride on toward Concord, where the militia's arsenal was hidden. They were joined by Samuel Prescott, a doctor who happened to be in Lexington "returning from a lady friend's house at the awkward hour of 1 a.m."

Revere, Dawes, and Prescott were detained by British troops in Lincoln at a roadblock on the way to Concord. Prescott jumped his horse over a wall and escaped into the woods; Dawes also escaped, though soon after he fell off his horse and did not complete the ride. Revere was detained and questioned and then escorted at gunpoint by three British officers back toward Lexington. As morning broke and they neared Lexington Meeting-house, shots were heard. The British officers became alarmed, confiscated Revere's horse, and rode toward the Meeting-house. Revere was horseless and walked through a cemetery and pastures until he came to Rev. Clarke's house where Hancock and Adams were staying. As the battle on Lexington Green continued, Revere helped John Hancock and his family escape from Lexington with their possessions, including a trunk of Hancock's papers,

[My Emphasis].
From what I have read in the Wikipedia account, Revere set out to warn the colonial patriots that "Regular" troops were marching out towards Lexingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif and Concord--there were plenty of colonials that were also sympathetic to the British government. Revere did not shout out that "The British are coming," as the colonials thought of themselves as British subjects--the warning was meant for the patriots. Finally, Revere had to warn both John Hancock and Samuel Adams of the Regular troop movements, who would arrest both men if found. The information on Paul Revere's ride is there--you just have to quickly and easily look it up. I'll admit that I had tohttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif look up some of the details on Revere's ride.

Does Sarah Palin correct herself from her previous comments? No. She continues to spout her same, incoherent babble about how her events on Paul Revere's rid are correct. In some ways, it shows us just who Sarah Palin is. She certainly can't admit when she's wrong--even when the facts are arranged against her. Palin has embarked on this "bus tour" for who knows why? Is it a precursor to a 2012 presidential run? In some sense, this tour keeps Sarah Palin in the news, inflating a probably narcissistic personality with a huge ego. She doesn't read newspapers or magazines to keep up with foreign events. And every time I listen to Sarah Palin talk, it seems that she can't articulate a clear thought from her head. It makes her come off as being "stupid," or an "idiot." Maybe she is an idiot. I can't say, but this is not an individual that I want in the White House--certainly not with her fingers on the nuclear button.

And yet, there are plenty of right-winged extremists that love her. That is scary.

Fox News gets front row seat in White House Briefing Room

Sometimes, I just have to shake my head, and wonder if the Obama administration has a clue on how to play politics. From The Huffington Post:

NEW YORK — Fox News Channel has been granted a much-coveted front-row seat in the White House briefing room.

The White House Correspondents Association said Sunday that The Associated Press' reporter has been moved to the front-row center seat previously occupied by Helen Thomas. Fox's correspondent will take the AP's former front-row seat, and National Public Radio's correspondent will move up one row to Fox's old second-row seat.

The center seat was long held by Thomas, a United Press International and Hearst News Service writer. The 89-year-old columnist resigned abruptly in June amid controversy over videotaped remarks she made calling on Israelis to get "out of Palestine." Fox, Bloomberg News (also seated in the second row) and NPR had lobbied for Thomas' seat.

Fox's upgrade is an acknowledgment of its "length of service and commitment," the association's board said in a statement.

Length of service and commitment??? Fox News is not a news organization. Fox News is a propaganda arm of the Republican Party, masquerading as a news organization. They get their marching orders from Rupert Murdoch on how to slant stories, or to regurgitate lies and propaganda as when conservative blogger Andrew Brietbart gave Fox a cherry-picked video of USDA official Shirley Sherrod supposedly making reverse discrimination remarks against a white farmer's family, resulting in her resignation. The entire Sherrod scandal was a complete lie and falsification, created by Brietbart, and trumpeted by Fox. So now Fox News gets a front-row seat in the White House Briefing Room due to their "length of service and commitment" in spewing their lies and propaganda.

Incredible.

Florida church plans book burning of Quran

I found this story through Americablog, and I'm just amazed. From CNN.Com:

(CNN) -- In protest of what it calls a religion "of the devil," a nondenominational church in Gainesville, Florida, plans to host an "International Burn a Quran Day" on the ninth anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks.

The Dove World Outreach Center says it is hosting the event to remember 9/11 victims and take a stand against Islam. With promotions on its website and Facebook page, it invites Christians to burn the Muslim holy book at the church from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.

"We believe that Islam is of the devil, that it's causing billions of people to go to hell, it is a deceptive religion, it is a violent religion and that is proven many, many times," Pastor Terry Jones told CNN's Rick Sanchez earlier this week.

Jones wrote a book titled "Islam is of the Devil," and the church sells coffee mugs and shirts featuring the phrase.

Muslims and many other Christians -- including some evangelicals -- are fighting the initiative.

The church launched a YouTube channel to disseminate its messages.

"I mean ask yourself, have you ever really seen a really happy Muslim? As they're on the way to Mecca? As they gather together in the mosque on the floor? Does it look like a real religion of joy?" Jones asks in one of his YouTube posts.

"No, to me it looks like a religion of the devil."

I'll be honest, when I think of book burnings, these guys were the real pros:



Does this idiot Pastor Terry Jones really want to walk down this destructive path?

Is the middle class being systematically wiped out?

I don't know what else to say here, except that these statistics are scary. Reaganomics has triumphed into destroying the Middle Class. This is from the Business Insider, via Yahoo News:

The 22 statistics detailed here prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the middle class is being systematically wiped out of existence in America.

The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer at a staggering rate. Once upon a time, the United States had the largest and most prosperous middle class in the history of the world, but now that is changing at a blinding pace.

So why are we witnessing such fundamental changes? Well, the globalism and "free trade" that our politicians and business leaders insisted would be so good for us have had some rather nasty side effects. It turns out that they didn't tell us that the "global economy" would mean that middle class American workers would eventually have to directly compete for jobs with people on the other side of the world where there is no minimum wage and very few regulations. The big global corporations have greatly benefited by exploiting third world labor pools over the last several decades, but middle class American workers have increasingly found things to be very tough.

Here are the statistics to prove it:

• 83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people.
• 61 percent of Americans "always or usually" live paycheck to paycheck, which was up from 49 percent in 2008 and 43 percent in 2007.
• 66 percent of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans.
• 36 percent of Americans say that they don't contribute anything to retirement savings.
• A staggering 43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved up for retirement.
• 24 percent of American workers say that they have postponed their planned retirement age in the past year.
• Over 1.4 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy in 2009, which represented a 32 percent increase over 2008.
• Only the top 5 percent of U.S. households have earned enough additional income to match the rise in housing costs since 1975.
• For the first time in U.S. history, banks own a greater share of residential housing net worth in the United States than all individual Americans put together.
• In 1950, the ratio of the average executive's paycheck to the average worker's paycheck was about 30 to 1. Since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300 to 500 to one.
• As of 2007, the bottom 80 percent of American households held about 7% of the liquid financial assets.
• The bottom 50 percent of income earners in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth.
• Average Wall Street bonuses for 2009 were up 17 percent when compared with 2008.
• In the United States, the average federal worker now earns 60% MORE than the average worker in the private sector.
• The top 1 percent of U.S. households own nearly twice as much of America's corporate wealth as they did just 15 years ago.
• In America today, the average time needed to find a job has risen to a record 35.2 weeks.
• More than 40 percent of Americans who actually are employed are now working in service jobs, which are often very low paying.
• or the first time in U.S. history, more than 40 million Americans are on food stamps, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that number will go up to 43 million Americans in 2011.
• This is what American workers now must compete against: in China a garment worker makes approximately 86 cents an hour and in Cambodia a garment worker makes approximately 22 cents an hour.
• Approximately 21 percent of all children in the United States are living below the poverty line in 2010 - the highest rate in 20 years.
• Despite the financial crisis, the number of millionaires in the United States rose a whopping 16 percent to 7.8 million in 2009.
• The top 10 percent of Americans now earn around 50 percent of our national income.

All I can think of is that if the destruction of the middle class continues, with the increased discrepancy between the ubber-rich and poor, could we see a class revolution take place in the future--especially since there are around 270 million guns in this country?

I found this CQ Politics story through Americablog:

Republicans are growing increasingly frustrated with Sharron Angle and her lackluster campaign to unseat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), fearing she is jeopardizing what they had long viewed as a sure pickup and costing them a chance to reclaim the majority.

Senate Republicans quietly acknowledge that Angle’s controversial views on some issues remain a political liability. But the former Nevada Assemblywoman’s larger problems are a progression of unforced errors stemming from a lack of campaign experience and an amateurish staff incapable of offering her the necessary guidance. However, Angle has proved to be adept at fundraising, corralling $2.6 million in the second quarter.

What is especially interesting is that an unnamed Nevada Republican has called Sharron Angle's campaign "dysfunctional," saying "She can still win, but the operation seems odd at best." Also, the Republican National Committee dispatched an operative to Nevada to help the Angle campaign. However, Angle's deputy campaign manager Jordan Gehrke responded to Republican worries, saying that Angle campaign is 'putting together a professional team of experienced political operatives.'

I'm sorry, but most of this story is complete bull. As Americablog stated, Sharron Angle is a bit nutty. What else is there to say? When you make so many crazed, right-wingnut statements, reporters are going to want you to clarify your positions regarding these crazed statements. And running away from reporters asking hard questions to you will not improve your political image as a qualified candidate for the U.S. Senate. Unfortunately, that is what Sharron Angle has been doing. And now, the Republican Party is worried that Democrat Harry Reid will stomp Angle in November.

Of course, I could also say this is what you get when the GOP decides to shift itself further into right-wing crazyland. You elect crazy candidates making crazy statements that could scare the Hell out of moderates and independents. Do you really expect the moderates and independents to vote for these wacked-out, crazed Republican candidates? Or has the GOP decided to forgo any voter, except their own, crazed, right-wing constituents? I don't know yet, but I do fear for this country if the voters are either that stupid, or ignorant, to elect the likes of Sharron Angle into office.

So which Angle is it on Social Security?

I found this interesting blog post on the Washington Monthly, and I just had to laugh. Nevada GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle addressed a conservative convention in Las Vegas, where she backtracked, saying she did not want eliminate Social Security, but save Social Security by paying back the $2.5 trillion the government spent in the fun. Here is the original story on Angle's speech at Talking Points Memo:

Las Vegas -- Senate candidate Sharron Angle (R-NV) revved up a conservative crowd today, even as she denied her pre-primary win statements on phasing out Social Security.

Addressing the conservative convention RightOnline at the Venetian casino this afternoon, Angle was hailed for pledging to "permanently repeal the death tax" and for saying she stands with Arizona's new immigration law. She has become a conservative darling in her bid to unseat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).

Angle repeated her desire to shut down the Department of Education, saying that it and other federal functions should be left to the states. She also said if elected her vision is, "One nation under God, not one nation under the government."

Angle's remarks on Social Security were the most likely to be new political fodder in an increasingly competitive race. The TPM Poll Average is Reid 44.0% to Angle 43.1%.

During Angle's less-than-10-minute speech, she outlined her philosophy to cut the deficit and talked of her "simple" campaign plan she calls "Pay back, cut back and take back." To start with she said the government should pay back the $2.5 trillion that's been "raided and pillaged out of the Social Security fund."

"I've never said I want to eliminate, I always said I want to save Social Security by paying back. But to do that we have to cut back," Angle told the crowd of more than 1,100 attendees to mild applause.

Of course, it takes just a few seconds to find video of Angle's now-famed quote on Nevada's "Face to Face" television show that, "We need to phase Medicare and Social Security out in favor of something privatized."

And here is the video of Sharron Angle saying that famous quote "to phase Medicare and Social Security" to privatization. From YouTube:



So which Angle is it on Social Security? Is Sharron Angle for completely privatizing Social Security, giving Wall Street trillions of government money to play in the stock market casino? Or is Sharron Angle again lying to Nevada voters, now saying that she wants the government to pay back the money it pulled out of the trust fund for spending? Which is it Sharron? Of course, if the Nevada press ever get a chance to ask Sharron Angle this question of her flip-flopping, I'm sure that Angle will respond in a truthful manner:

Saturday Morning Cartoos--Superfriends meet Bigfoot

The Superfriends meet Bigfoot. How cool is that? From YouTube:

GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle responds to reporters' questions by not answering questions

This is just too funny. From Politico.com:

The day after walking out of her own campaign event when reporters were offered an opportunity to ask questions, Nevada GOP Senate nominee Sharron Angle on Thursday responded to a question from a reporter — to tell them she wasn’t answering the question.

For the second day in a row, Angle’s campaign alerted the press that they were holding a campaign event where the Republican would offer critical remarks on the estate tax.

After giving a three-minute speech on the tax Wednesday, Angle bolted for the door when asked to make herself available to answer questions from the press.

Angle took a beating in local and national news reports of the event. So on Thursday, Angle’s campaign hoped to make the ground rules for the event crystal clear.

At the beginning of the press conference, Angle spokeswoman Ciara Matthews announced to reporters: “We’re really focused on the death tax today. So that’s what we’ll be taking questions on.”

Following Angle’s remarks on the tax, a reporter told Angle, “we have a bunch of questions on other issues.”

“Is there any reason you won’t talk about any other issues?” the reporter asked, as was shown in a story from Las Vegas NBC affiliate My News 3.

Angle responded by telling the reporter that “today we’re concentrating on one thing. What will get America and especially Nevada back on its economic wheels, if you will.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40154.html#ixzz0uY3f4Yb0

So if I'm reading this right, GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle will hold a press conference where reporters can only ask questions on issues that the Angle campaign wants to focus on--and nothing else? I take it that Sharron Angle will not comment on why she ran away from reporters at her own press conference, yesterday. Nope--Sharron Angle will only answer reporters' questions on what she wants to answer! Is Sharron Angle that crazy, that stupid, or both?

Looking at this story, I'm thinking that Sharron Angle has an extreme, crazed, right-wing view on issues, and doesn't really want to reveal those views to the media. Perhaps her GOP-handlers are trying to hide Angle's extremist views from moderates and independents, who would realize just how much of a nut-job Angle is and vote in Democrat Harry Reid. Of course, the more that Sharron Angle alienates the media, the more the media will think that she has something to hide. The media will go after Sharron Angle.

Getting interesting here.

Nevada GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle ducks her own press conference

This is from Talking Points Memo:

Former Nevada state Rep. Sharron Angle, the Republican nominee for Senate against Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid, is still getting the hang of holding a "press conference" with the media. At an event Wednesday, Angle spoke for three minutes on cutting taxes -- and then quickly left when the assembled reporters tried to ask her questions.

The funniest thing, as shown in tracking video from the Nevada Democratic Party, is that Angle's host seemingly invited the reporters to ask questions -- then Angle suddenly walked away without saying anything.

As CNN points out, the event was in fact billed as a press conference in Angle's own campaign events schedule. It should also be noted that Angle has previously said she avoids interviews with mainstream media outlets that would ask her tough questions, opting for conservative media where she can raise money from viewers.

You can view the YouTube video here:



Angle won the Nevada GOP Senate primary as a Tea Party candidate to take on Democrat Harry Reid. However, Angle has some very wacked out political views, as Rachel Maddow points out here, here, and here.

Now in one sense, I can understand that Sharron Angle is a friggin' wacked-out, insanely crazed GOP senatorial candidate that Nevada Republicans chose, probably because they were drugged by the Fluoride-laced tap water, dumped by Nevada state government black helicopters! What I do find especially interesting is how the Angle campaign called a press conference to discuss cutting taxes (A Republican campaign mantra), only to have the Not Ready for Prime Time candidate duck out of the conference without answering a single question from reporters--I thought press conferences were events where politicians answered questions from the press reporters?

Then again, Sharron Angle is taking a page from another GOP candidate who also has a knack for avoiding the press:

[GOP candidate Meg] Whitman invited the press to cover a meeting she was to have with a railroad executive, but upon its completion she refused to take any questions. After a long pause and some nervous laughter, she had security block the cameras, and finally had them escorted out by her press aid.

I think it is rather disturbing that we have two Republican candidates consistently refusing to answer tough reporter questions on the issues, or their political views. And yet, both candidates are groomed by the GOP-spin machine as mainstream, with their supposed "messages" sanitized and pre-packaged for voters that the Republican Party probably thinks are either dumb, or ill-informed. Then again, perhaps the GOP wants dumb American voters who will simply accept whatever crap the GOP shoves down their throats. And we will never really see who Sharron Angle, or Meg Whitman really are, as they are both marketed as stale turkey sandwiches on canned bread.

Cigar association for congressional staffers is a GOP lobbying front

There is not much more I can say about this story, except....WOW! From the Huffington Post:

Lobbyists for major banks, insurers, pharmaceutical firms, energy companies and at least one foreign government have been helping organize lavish gatherings of staffers and members of Congress since early 2009, funneling K Street money through an officially chartered staff organization called the Congressional Cigar Association.

The CCA, founded by Republican staffers and sponsored by Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.), is chartered by the House Administration Committee to encourage networking among congressional staff. Its most recent gathering was held Tuesday at a townhouse just steps from the Capitol, where staffers were feted by Miami Cigar & Company.

As evening fell, guests lounged in the garden out back, sipping cold drinks and puffing away on what smelled like high-end cigars. Gary Pesh, owner of Old Virginia Tobacco and a member of the Congressional Cigar Association, said the event is just an excuse to "get together and have fun." When asked about the conflict of interest inherent in allowing lobbyists to fund a congressional staff organization, dozens of attendees just continued wordlessly on up the red brick steps. "This is approved by the House, so we're good," one staffer said. (Another staffer told HuffPost that filming wasn't allowed, though she was standing under a sign warning passersby that the area was under video surveillance.)

At least half a dozen lobbyists have been closely involved in the operation of the ostensibly staff-driven organization, a review of emails, documents and lobbyist disclosure reports finds. By helping to fund and organize the group's activities, K Street lobby shops are given privileged access to senior-level staffers and members of Congress in intimate settings where they lobby on behalf of their clients. The association is overwhelmingly Republican, as is the cigar-smoking habit it is organized around.

The cigar group is run by a six-member board. In the wake of the Abramoff scandal, congressional ethics rules were implemented to require that "all officers must be employees of the House or Senate" and that the ethics committee approve all gifts of monetary value offered to the association. Meanwhile, federal law forbids staffers from soliciting gifts to it. Yet three of the board members running the cigar group are lobbyists, including the lead organizer of several exclusive events. Trade associations subsidize the group's events.

"On the face of it, while its not the great train robbery, it clearly implicates House rules that prohibit taking gifts from lobbyists," said Stan Brand, a congressional ethics attorney, when told of the group's activities. "The prohibition is a flat prohibition. The staff can get together and do whatever they want. But when it's underwritten by lobbyists it's gonna fly in the teeth of the rules."

Spokespersons for the House and Senate ethics committees, as well as the House Administration Committee, said they were unable to speak on the record. A spokesman to Bilbray said that the congressman has had little interaction with the group since its 2009 founding and that it is the organization's responsibility to make sure it behaves within House and Senate rules.

Here is the YouTube story by HuffPost:



In another sense, I'm actually not surprised at this type of corruption within the Republican Party. We've seen some of this corruption with Tom DeLay, the Jack Abramoff scandal, the K Street Project, U.S. Attorney firings, and the dozens of scandals from the Bush administration. And let us not forget the strange, secret, religious organization known as The Family, which was linked to several sex scandals of prominent Republican congressmen. Why should I also not be surprised that Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.) is financing a little cigar smoking get-together between GOP staffers and lobbyists? It is just another example of just how corrupt the Republican Party has become.

Will Meg spend $30 million to buy the California legislature?

I found this San Francisco Chronicle story last week, and it is just fascinating. Republican candidate Meg Whitman has already spent over $100 million in her bid to purchase the California governors mansion. Why not spend another $30 million to purchase the California legislature as well? From the San Francisco Chronicle:

California Republicans are buzzing about the possibility that billionaire gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman - who has spent nearly $100 million of her own money on her campaign - could be preparing another unprecedented personal investment in her political future: a $30 million-plus infusion into the state party.

The Chronicle has obtained a draft of a detailed 44-page state GOP "2010 Victory Plan" that outlines the party's $85.5 million financial blueprint for a campaign effort that includes $30 million directed to the gubernatorial race.

The former eBay CEO is "putting a significant amount of money in ... it could be $30 to $40 million," said a GOP insider familiar with the plan. The source said Whitman is also expected to tap her fundraising sources and contacts for the party's benefit.

Whitman's potential $30 million in contributions was confirmed by prominent state Republicans, who spoke on condition that they would not be named for publication.

But Whitman spokesman Tucker Bounds strongly denied the notion.

"No secret document or anonymous source you have is credible in this because Meg is not writing the $30 million check," he said. "It's simple. Meg is planning to help solicit outside contributions to the party and working tirelessly to defeat the status quo in Sacramento. That's the plan and it isn't a secret."

Moreover, Whitman campaign officials insisted the candidate is planning no sizeable contributions to the state GOP.

First thought is that I don't think "Governor" Whitman would have a clue as to how to work with the state legislature, which is controlled by the Democrats. Instead of finding common ground with the legislature that can provide compromises, I'd say that Whitman would rather shove whatever her agenda is down the legislature's throats. Of course, I've seen this behavior before with Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger. The result has been a constant bickering between the Governator and the legislature (And I'm sure the state legislature is just as responsible as the Governator regarding the nasty fights that have taken place in Sacramento). Ironically, both Schwarzenegger and the legislature's poll numbers are in the garbage can. According to this Field Poll, Governor Schwarzenegger's approval ratings are at an all-time low of 22 percent--plunging from an all-time high of 65 percent in 2004. What is more, Schwarzenegger's poll numbers are now at the same level of his predecessor, Gray Davis, when the Governator jumped in the recall election ring to replace Davis. The state legislature's approval poll numbers are even lower than the Governator's, at around 16 percent.

So what does this mean for Meg Whitman? I'm thinking that the Whitman campaign has studied the Schwarzenegger administration, and has decided that since they can't work with a Democratic legislature, they might as well buy a Republican legislature into office. As the CEO of eBay, I can see Whitman using the forcefulness of her personality to get things done her way--eBay was her company. I just can't see Whitman succeeding in forcing the Democratic legislature bending towards her agenda. Instead, we would see four more years of bickering and gridlock. When I look at Meg Whitman's campaign, I see a completely controlled, fully scripted, almost corporate marketing campaign that has spent $100 million to promote its product of Meg Whitman. That is it. Whitman has consistently refused to answer tough press questions on her policy agenda. Meg Whitman has become the Invisible Candidate. Will she also become the Invisible Governor, pushing whatever agenda she has that the California voters have no clue about, since the Corporate Whitman Marketing Campaign has pushed their view of who Governor Whitman is? I can't say.

Hence, we've got this speculation that Meg Whitman will be buying the California legislature to the GOP for a price of $30 million. If the Invisible Candidate becomes the Invisible Governor, and the California legislature switches to the Republicans as a result of Whitman's $130 million-plus investment, then I guess we'll have the best political system that money can buy in California. And the Invisible Governor would have the perfect platform to shove whatever her agenda is, down California's throat. That is scary.

The second thought I have about this story is the Whitman campaign's denial that the Invisible Candidate will actually spend $30 million to the state GOP coffers. Perhaps it is true, and Whitman will not be spending her own money to help state Republican candidates win office. But somehow, I don't believe it. There are a couple of reasons here. First, Whitman has spent over $100 million of her own money in this campaign--and we've got four months to go before the election. Can you say Whitman will spend another $100 million in the general election on negative advertising to defeat Jerry Brown? Because that is all I see on the television now, and I'm expecting it will get even worst as November rolls around. Meg Whitman is spending so much money to influence California politics towards her advantage--what is another $30 million to influence the legislature, if she gets elected? Second, Whitman campaign spokespeople are denying these claims. I want the Invisible Candidate to come out and speak on this issue to reporters. Of course, Meg Whitman will never speak to reporters on any issues. And third, I think there may be a backlash brewing on how much of her money Meg Whitman has spend on her campaign. The more of her money the Invisible Candidate spends of her political campaign, the greater the negative speculation is of Whitman attempting to purchase the governor's office. Perhaps the Whitman campaign doesn't care how much money Meg spends on herself. But if the story of Whitman spending $30 million to help Republican candidates win seats in the legislature has any truth to it, then is Whitman trying to purchase the California government for the Republican Party? I know that Democratic voters would cringe at that thought, but how would independent and non-partisan voters feel about Meg buying a state government for the GOP?

Talk about another scary thought. More to come.

Thoughts on California propositions during the primary

In addition to the primary races for various California political offices, there were a number of propositions on the ballot that were somewhat controversial. And I think I found some interesting trends for those propositions.

First, let me give you a rundown on the propositions:

Proposition 14, Open Primary: Proposition 14 changes the way Californians elect local candidates for state and federal offices. Under Prop. 14, only the top two vote-getters in the primary election will advance to the general election. This is irregardless of political party. So in a particular district, you could see two Republicans advance to the general election of a political office because they received the most votes in a primary election, and there will be no Democrat on the ballot--or visa versa. And since third party candidates rarely beat out Democratic or Republican candidates for offices, you are never going to see such third party candidates running for offices on general election ballots. This open primary does not affect the presidential election. Currently, the primary election advances the top vote-getter from each political party to the general election. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger promoted Prop. 14, and have given $1.7 million to support the campaign. Prop. 14 passed with 54 percent of the vote over 45 percent. This is huge. It has turned California politics on its head. Before Prop. 14, elections were between candidates of the two main political parties--the Democrats and Republicans. If you didn't like either of the main party candidates, you could always toss a protest vote towards one of the third party candidates--Libertarian, Peace and Freedom, or the Green Party candidate. But now with Prop. 14, you could have a situation where the top two candidates for a congressional district would go to Democratic candidates in a district which was redrawn to increase the number of Democratic voters in that particular district. Republican voters in that particular district would have no Republican candidate to vote for in the general election for that congressional district. You can reverse the situation for Republican-leaning districts showing two Republican candidates running in the general election, and no Democratic candidates for Democratic voters in the Republican-leaning district. You have severely limited your choices. And third party candidates are completely screwed with this proposition.

I'm not sure how the political parties are going to respond to this proposition. Are the main political parties going back to backroom horse-trading for selecting their candidates for offices, just to make sure they one or both top vote-getters for a district, or office? How are the third parties going to respond to this proposition, since they are on the fringes of votes tallied in elections? Finally, there is this situation where eBay CEO Meg Whitman spent $80 million to win the GOP primary for the governor's office. What if you had two ubber-CEO's, each spending $80 million of their fortunes on negative campaigning, splitting a close vote in a party primary? Who would advance to the general election? Or maybe both ubber-CEOs would gain enough votes so that both would advance to the general election, locking out the candidate from the opposing party? This election has shown just how pervasive money can be in winning primaries with Meg Whitman spending gobs of cash for capturing the GOP nomination. How does Whitman's spending gobs of cash reflect in a primary process that has eviscerated the political parties? I'm not sure I fully understand the consequences in the passage of this proposition.

Proposition 16, Public Electricity Initiative: Proposition 16 was an initiative which required two-thirds voter approval before a local government agency could enter into a retail electricity business. Pacific Gas and Electric spent over $46 million promoting the passage of Prop. 16, calling it "the taxpayers right to vote act." Opponents to Prop. 16 spent around $91,000 against the proposition. Proposition 16 was defeated, 52 percent to 48 percent. Looking at this proposition, I had to ask myself, "Why does PG&E want to spend $46 million protect my right to vote?" Especially in voting for a proposition to protect my right to vote? This was obviously a means for PG&E to protect their monopoly position in the power business by forcing local governments from getting into the power business with an insurmountable two-thirds majority vote. Perhaps California voters realized this, and shot Prop. 14 down.

But there is also more to this ballot initiative. For the past six months, PG&E have been embroiled in a controversy of replacing customers current meters with Smart Meters. Apparently these PG&E Smart Meters have been overcharging customers, generating 1,000 customer complaints to regulators. The smart meter controversy has been a public relations nightmare for PG&E, where the utility company has been facing a consumer revolt against the smart meters, even to the point of lawsuits filed against the PG&E for overcharging customers. What is important to realize here is that PG&E is embroiled in a controversy of overcharging customers with their installation of a shoddy product--the smart meter. Now PG&E is bankrolling a proposition to maintain their monopoly on gas and electricity services with money that we pay into PG&E to purchase their gas and electricity. All to make sure that we will not be given the opportunity to select our local governments to provide gas and electrical service to us, rather than PG&E--I'm not proposing that local governments providing retail power services are better or worst than what PG&E can provide. I'm just showing the ridiculousness of PG&E's position on this initiative.

Still, the ballot initiative was very close to passing--being defeated by four percentage points. PG&E sunk a huge amount of money into Prop. 16, and nearly got away with passing the initiative. Had PG&E not been embroiled into the smart meter controversy, I seriously wonder if the company would have been able to pass the initiative? It is an interesting question to ponder.

Proposition 17, Auto Insurance Initiative: Finally, I want to talk about Proposition 17, the Auto Insurance Initiative. This initiative would allow insurance companies to offer a discount to drivers who continuously maintained their auto insurance coverage, even if they changed their insurance companies. The initiative would also allow insurance companies to increase premiums to drivers who do not have continuous insurance coverage. Proposition 17 was funded by Mercury Insurance, which contributed $14.6 million to the "Yes on 17" campaign. Proposition 17 failed to pass, with 52 percent of voters saying no, and 48 percent saying yes. What is interesting about this proposition is really the number of consumer complaints in California against Mercury insurance. In June, 2008, Mercury Insurance paid a $250,000 settlement for claims violations against California drivers. The California Department of Insurance conducted a review of consumer complaints filed against Mercury Insurance. A total of 258 violations were discovered from 121 files reviewed over a period from January 2004 through December 2005, ranging from unreasonable delays in affirming or denying insurance coverage, and issuing claim payments to California drivers. In addition, a 275-page report, released in February, 2010, by the Department of Insurance, and Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, revealed that Mercury Insurance may have violated numerous California state laws from the mid-1990s to 2004, which included:

-- Flagging some consumers for higher rates if they had been in an accident, even if it was not their fault.

-- Not immediately granting coverage to applicants including military personnel on active duty, "artists," those employed "in the entertainment industry as actors, dancers, etc.," and emergency vehicle drivers.

-- Raising insurance premiums after its sales agents quoted prices for discounts for which the consumer was not eligible. The department said this was the single largest category of complaints it received about the firm.

-- Collecting higher premiums than allowed by law by requiring its brokers to return part of their fees to the company.

-- Requesting information about customers' "national origin," a practice that the department said "could raise questions about the legality of Mercury's personal automobile policy cancellation and non-renewal decisions" under state law. Mercury agreed to block such data after the state investigators raised concerns.

With all the trouble Mercury Insurance has been in with the California Department of Insurance, it is no wonder that Mercury wanted this ballot initiative to pass. It is almost like Prop. 17 would have legalized Mercury's deceptive practices against California drivers, leaving them with no recourse. But this brings up a problem for Mercury Insurance--they spent over $14 million to pass Proposition 17. Mercury Insurance was tied to Proposition 17. And all the talk that the Yes on 17 campaign tried to present the proposition as a benefit to California consumers, the campaign was bankrolled by a private insurance company. When has a private insurance company ever presented a law or ballot issue that would actually benefit consumers over that insurance company's self-interest?

This brings up an interesting contradiction on the influence of money in political campaigns. For individual candidates, we've seen how plowing huge amounts of their own money into their political campaigns could allow them to win the primaries--see Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina. Even Steve Poizner plowed over $24 million into his campaign for the GOP nomination for California governor, only to be outspent by Meg Whitman's $71 million--and Meg Whitman won. Had Whitman not entered the race, Poizner may have gotten the GOP nomination with his $24 million bankroll. It is like, if individual candidates are willing to spend enough money, they could possibly win nominations to California public offices. Now look at the corporations funding ballot initiatives--specifically PG&E's $46 million funding for Prop. 16, and Mercury Insurance's $14 million for Prop. 17 initiative. Both propositions failed by four percentage points. Are California voters smart enough, or suspicious enough, to suspect ulterior motives that corporations may have in funding propositions, but ignore such ulterior motives that private individuals may have in spending huge amounts of their own personal fortunes for political offices, or their own political gain? It is a strange contradiction.

Post California primary election thoughts

It is midterm election year, and yesterday was the Election Day for the California primary race. While I have been rather busy taking Digital Media classes at West Valley Community College, I've been keeping my eyes on the races taking place here. And I've been thinking about the races as well.

For the past five months, the attention has been focused on two big California races here--both Republican races. The first race has been for the Republican nomination to the California governor's office, pitting former eBay CEO Meg Whitman against California Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner. Whitman announced her candidacy for the governor's office back in September, 2009, and has spent $81 million on the primary election--much of it on slick campaign ads attacking Poizner as being a liberal politician. What is even more interesting is that Whitman has completely avoided talking to reporters, even to the point of calling a press conference, before ejecting reporters out of the conference. Instead, what we get is Meg "The Invisible Candidate" Whitman, who is only interested in promising the sun, sky, and moon on campaign commercials, or appearing on "town hall" infomercials that are nothing more than extended campaign commercials for The Invisible Candidate. Oh, and let us not forget that The Invisible Candidate never voted in elections for decades, even as she was eBay's CEO. Most of this is old political news, but it is interesting that Whitman was able to survive these scandals, and still beat Poizner 65 percent to 26 percent. I should also say that while Whitman spent almost $71 million of her own money on her campaign, Poizner spent $24 million of his own money on his campaign. In other words, we had an over $100 million primary campaign by ubber-rich candidates. And the candidate who spent the most of their own money--Whitman--won the primary. In fact, this was not a GOP primary election--it was a GOP party auction as to who would be selected to purchase the California governor's mansion in November. And The Invisible Candidate Meg Whitman is on her way towards purchasing the California governorship.

She just has to beat Democratic candidate Attorney General Jerry Brown.

The second big Republican primary race was with the U.S. Senate, where Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina defeated former congressman Tom Campbell for a shot at taking on Senator Barbara Boxer in November. This race kind of stayed in the shadows, considering the deluge of Whitman campaign negative ads against Poizner for the past six months. Fiorina has spent around $6.7 million of her own cash on the campaign. Interestingly, according to this ABC News story, Fiorina outspent both Campbell's $1.7 million, and Irvine Assemblyman Chuck DeVore's $2.1 million to come out ahead with more than 55 percent of the vote.

What does this all mean? We've heard that money can buy political access, but I've never seen the extent of money influencing elections as I have with this race. Meg Whitman spent $71 million of her own money to defeat Steve Poizner, who spent $24 million of his own money, for the GOP governor's primary. This is an extreme example of ubber-elites spending gobs of money to...buy the governor's mansion? Why is Meg Whitman spending $71 million for an office that pays only $212,000 a year? Somehow Meg's responses of "serving the people," or "cleaning up the corruption" in Sacramento seems like bull crap. Of course it is even more ironic that Whitman, who touts her business credentials as a positive for cleaning up Sacramento politics, is running for an office that is currently held by another GOP businessman who also touted his business credentials for cleaning up Sacramento politics--and look where his poll numbers are. Why is Meg spending so much of her own money to buy the California governorship?

While Carly Fiorina may not have spent the obscene amounts of money that both Whitman and Poizner spent for their races, she still outspent both Campbell and DeVore by 3x for the U.S. Senate primary race. And Fiorina was fired from Hewlett Packard with a $21 million severance package. Why is Carly spending so much of her own money to buy a U.S. Senate seat?

So very troubling.